Since some have seen fit to call into question the use of the zodiac by jyotish, through numerous means, I would likewise call into question the use of the zodiac, by those who try and diminish jyotisha.

It is my understanding that the earliest use of astrology in the so-called Western tradition is based on stars, and not seasons, and this use started somewhat earlier than 4.000 years ago (according to contemporary post-modern theory of history - which contradicts the history teachings of the ancients).

Nowadays there are astrologers who use a seasonal based astrology, but this is entirely contradictory to the roots of their tradition(s).

Why do some astrologers insist on using a seasonal based zodiac for their astrology, when it is clear that the roots of the tradition do not use the seasons?

Why do some astrologers insist on using a northern-hemisphere based zodiac, which is rendered absurd by the existence of the southern hemisphere?

At least jyotish is consistent in this regards of trying to keep it with the stars.

The use of various house systems have allowed them to continue using the wrong zodiac, because many times the cusp ruler of the tropical zodiac houses is the same as it would be in the jyotish whole sign house system, but what will they do in the future when the zodiacs do not coincide as closely and continue with the wrong zodiac?

Unless the trepidation theory is true and not precession, then I suppose in the relatively near future the two zodiacs will come back together.

Remember David Hume who questioned the currently popular scientific epistemic view.

They developed other techniques besides placing as much importance on the ruler of the ascendant, to gain insight into the native, because unlike the jyotish system, the ascendant rulers do not usually fit the native anymore.

If you are weary of this tired argument, don't bother responding. This thread is addressed to those who would diminish jyotisha.

varuna wrote: It is my understanding that the earliest use of astrology in the so-called Western tradition is based on stars, and not seasons

As far as I understand it it was actually based a bit on both. For example we clearly see in sites like Newgrange etc. that the ancients were concerned also with tropical considerations such as the solstices.

Nowadays there are astrologers who use a seasonal based astrology, but this is entirely contradictory to the roots of their tradition(s).

Not really. See above.

Why do some astrologers insist on using a northern-hemisphere based zodiac, which is rendered absurd by the existence of the southern hemisphere?

At least jyotish is consistent in this regards of trying to keep it with the stars.

So why don't they then?
As far as I know jyotish astrology still uses an equal sign zodiac - thus deciding that actually every single constellation can be ignored with the exception of Aries - why is this? Also why do jyotish astrologers suggest that the Sun rules Leo and Mars rules Aries etc which are clearly a tropical northern hemisphere assignation. When precessing, why not also precess latitude? Why only longitude?
The problems with the zodiac used by jyotish are numerous.

If you are weary of this tired argument, don't bother responding. This thread is addressed to those who would diminish jyotisha.

I don't really care enough about jyotish astrology to diminish it. However, in my opinion, it clearly has many questions to answers regarding its apparently contradictory logic with regards its zodiac.

"The use of various house systems have allowed them to continue using the wrong zodiac, because many times the cusp ruler of the tropical zodiac houses is the same as it would be in the jyotish whole sign house system,"

Btw I don't find this a very convincing argument whatsoever. Which house systems corresponds with the jyotish zodiac 'many times'? This seems like a rather absurd statement to me.

Varuna wrote:

Why do some astrologers insist on using a seasonal based zodiac for their astrology, when it is clear that the roots of the tradition do not use the seasons?

I dont have a lot of time to participate in this thread just now but I wanted to provide the link to a lively previous thread I opened on the origins of zodiac in Hellenistic astrology. I think it answers Varuna and may give him and others some cause for reflection.

http://skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4359

varuna wrote:

Why do some astrologers insist on using a northern-hemisphere based zodiac, which is rendered absurd by the existence of the southern hemisphere?

This kind of mud slinging is a bit childish. In the same vein one could challenge a siderealist why they cling to a zodiac where the spring equinox will end up at the start of sidereal Capricorn in both hemispheres?

The point about tropicalism in the southern hemisphere is an issue for tropicalists to consider. I opened this thread on it a while back and its generated some thoughtful and insightful comments:

http://www.skyscript.co.uk/forums/viewt ... 00f9552ec1

However raising this issue no more refutes tropicalism than the lack of seasonal alignment in sidereal astrology annihilates that outlook today.

One of the things we all have to accept in life is that some people out there will disagree with us. The Buddha once said we have to encounter three kinds of people in the world: the friendly, the indifferent and the hostile.

I would say that most tropicalists are quite neutral or tolerant on the sidereal zodiac approach. I dont think you can assume that someone adopting a tropical zodiac necessarily wants to attack sidereal astrology. For myself its more an experiential preference. I just find it resonates more strongly for me. However, using terminology like 'the wrong zodiac' comes over like blinkered ideology rather than attempt to enter into meaningful dialogue. Imagine using that kind of language to religion. What kind of impression does a person give who states others are following 'the wrong religion'?

Remember David Hume who questioned the currently popular scientific epistemic view.

One of the greatest sons of my home city! I actually think Hume would have approved of much of modern science. He clearly wasn't convinced by notions of a creator God or divine miracles. Hence he also challenged the religiously dogmatic view of his day too.

These Tropical-Sidereal arguments are fun but they usually generate more heat than light. I would rather spend time reading historical research into the origins of the zodiac than trying to win a point scoring argument.

Mark

Paul wrote:As far as I understand it it was actually based a bit on both. For example we clearly see in sites like Newgrange etc. that the ancients were concerned also with tropical considerations such as the solstices.

As far as I know jyotish astrology still uses an equal sign zodiac - thus deciding that actually every single constellation can be ignored with the exception of Aries - why is this?

Also why do jyotish astrologers suggest that the Sun rules Leo and Mars rules Aries etc which are clearly a tropical northern hemisphere assignation. When precessing, why not also precess latitude? Why only longitude?
The problems with the zodiac used by jyotish are numerous.

I don't really care enough about jyotish astrology to diminish it. However, in my opinion, it clearly has many questions to answers regarding its apparently contradictory logic with regards its zodiac.

om

You are as ignorant as I am on the study of the origins and even the mechanisms of all astrology systems, therefore, I would offer a challenge on this, and you would be the only one to take this challenge.

Did you notice how no one else opened their mouth on this, except Mark, but Mark only did this to tell the two little schoolchildren to settle down now, and he showed us some information that reveals our own ignorance. Now, instead of two ignorant fools wasting their time revealing their own ignorance to each other, why don't we return to our studies? Then someday we will have earned the right to even open our mouth on this forum or any one, concerning broader astrology issues.

One of the authorities on origins of so-called Western astrology is said to be Robert Hand, I don't know if it is true or not. Hand said that the earliest astrology writings from the Near East use stars to mark positions of planets. Is this true?

What astrology system is based on Newgrange? Yes, probably every culture knew about seasons and marked them - it is kind of hard not to notice seasons, unless you are on the equator. Ancient Indians also used the seasons, but for some reason they chose to use a star-based astrology, but they still kept track of seasons separately.

Did it ever occur to you that there could be more than one cycle of things imposed on other cycles of things in the same culture? It seems like it has occurred to you, but you insist on questioning jyotish, without having studied the earliest origins of both systems, and learning both systems.

There are still vast amounts of obscure and untranslated texts in India, and some day in the future, these texts will shine more light on the current understandings of astrology and its history.

If you would care to study jyotish you would see the erroneous statements you already made. Whoever told you that Aries is the only constellation jyotishis pay attention to? When you have a star-based zodiac you take a particular placement and base the zodiac on that, just as you would by picking the vernal equinox as the 0 point for a tropical zodiac, for example. Your argument contradicts your own position as well.

The constellation of Aries doesn't even reach to either end of the sidereal sign of Aries. Why would jyotish base their signs on Aries? Who said they do this in the first place? I do not know what tree you are choosing to see, rather than the forest. I do not understand you.

The signs are 30 degrees because they take into account the influence of the surrounding galaxy and of the physics of harmonics at the same time. It is an elegant solution.

The names of the constellations and their shapes are arbitrary and placed on them by humans. It makes absolutely no difference if one constellation overlaps another one or not, as it were. You are seeing a tree and not the forest. The important thing about the star-based zodiac is the harmonic resonance, not the fact that some man-made attribute of an arbitrary shaped group of stars is one way or another. It is those regions of the sky (surrounding stars and galaxy) which matter in jyotish, not the arbitrary shape of a constellation.

The nakshatra which is placed on the galactic center is called the "root." It is believed that even in those ancient times, some people knew the galactic center was there.

According to the links Mark gave, the notion that rulerships and exaltations is based on the northern-hemisphere seasons is unverified and unproven.

They don't precess the latitude for the same reason that declination is unnecessary in Western astrology to give a reading. But more importantly, you are looking at it through the lens of the Tropical system, if you think more deeply about this you will realize the absurdity of the allegation of "not precessing the latitude." Hint: think about it by switching the idea that whichever zodiac you think is fixed, is also movable from the viewpoint of the other, and vice versa. Everything is relative to each other.

The problems with jyotish are only numerous in your mind, due to lack of knowledge. Someday you will understand why Ed made that statement on the thread at astrodienst about the recent article which questioned jyotish roots. I believe it was one of the last comments Ed made if you would care to look. It was something along the lines of using consistent techniques and logic from whichever points one wanted to use. Everything in the universe is in motion. Everything is relative. In order to create a system one needs to apply arbitrary logic to it to stabilize it in this ever changing universe.

It might be helpful to try this thought experiment: Imagine that you are standing in whichever orientation you are standing in right now and take away the earth. Which way is up? Take away the solar system. Which way is up? Take away the galaxy. Which way is up? Take away the local galaxy cluster. Which way is up? Take away the visible universe. Which way is up?

Everything is relative.

Systems were created in order to create something meaningful out of this relativity. The secret is that stability is a lie.

What contradictory logic are you talking about in jyotish? The contradictions are in your own lack of understanding jyotish, combined with an apparently deep prejudice. I do not mean that you are prejudiced against jyotish, but that your previous training has dirtied the lens of your mind from seeing alternative things with clarity.

The house cusps in Western astrology are placed on the front of the house, which is contrary to jyotish. This is why oftentimes the cusp ruler of various houses in Western astrology is the same as it would be in jyotish.

If you truly believe, without proof, that the rulerships and such are a northern hemisphere seasonal invention, then how do you dare to delineate a chart from Australia using Western astrology? I am not suggesting that you should stop interpreting Australian charts, but maybe you should think about these things before attacking another relative system.

The hellenistic astrologers are to astrology history, what the industrial revolution is to general history. In other words, the hellenistic astrologers came long after astrology began. If you have only studied hellenistic astrology or post-hellenistic astrology, then you know nothing about the early astrology.

I would consider Mark's advice and maybe spend time learning rather than arguing about things you don't even understand in the first place. I am certainly taking that advice myself. But you are free to do as you choose, or are you? (karma, astrological predispositions, etc.)

Before you think you have earned the right to challenge the logic or whatever, of a thing, you need to understand the thing, in my view at least.

peace

om

Mark wrote:This kind of mud slinging is a bit childish. In the same vein one could challenge a siderealist why they cling to a zodiac where the spring equinox will end up at the start of sidereal Capricorn in both hemispheres?

However raising this issue no more refutes tropicalism than the lack of seasonal alignment in sidereal astrology annihilates that outlook today.

One of the things we all have to accept in life is that some people out there will disagree with us. The Buddha once said we have to encounter three kinds of people in the world: the friendly, the indifferent and the hostile.

I would say that most tropicalists are quite neutral or tolerant on the sidereal zodiac approach. I dont think you can assume that someone adopting a tropical zodiac necessarily wants to attack sidereal astrology. For myself its more an experiential preference. I just find it resonates more strongly for me. However, using terminology like 'the wrong zodiac' comes over like blinkered ideology rather than attempt to enter into meaningful dialogue. Imagine using that kind of language to religion. What kind of impression does a person give who states others are following 'the wrong religion'?

These Tropical-Sidereal arguments are fun but they usually generate more heat than light. I would rather spend time reading historical research into the origins of the zodiac than trying to win a point scoring argument.

Mark

om

Thank you Mark! Well said. I salute you.

I did it because the current atmosphere in the world of Western astrology internet forums is rife with the stench of a rabid frenzy directed at jyotisha.

Not excusable I know. Sometimes I feel like I need to protect my children.

There is one error in your logic. The Capricorn on the vernal equinox is not an internal logic error of jyotish. It only appears that way because you are looking at it through the lens of the Tropical zodiac. Right now it is Pisces, and this is great! (I think it is an error, unless you meant something different.)

The northern and southern hemisphere is an internal logic error of the Tropical zodiac.

I was counting on providence to provide, on the reckless posting of this thread. Providence sent you. This post was actually a bait to those who would attack jyotish, and who do not even know anything about it at all; I was counting on someone here to speak up in the manner you did and who would present some knowledge to question this attacking of systems - motivated by willful, biased ignorance, and fueled by the knowledge of others.

It was an honor being reminded and reprimanded by you Mark. I am now going to return to my studies as you suggest, rather than waste time pointing blame and blathering on about things I do not know, and taking up space on this forum with ignorant writing.

Maybe someday I will have earned the right through knowledge, to converse on this forum.

Peace

om tat sat

varuna wrote:therefore, I would offer a challenge on this, and you would be the only one to take this challenge.

Did you notice how no one else opened their mouth on this, except Mark, but Mark only did this to tell the two little schoolchildren to settle down now, and he showed us some information that reveals our own ignorance. Now, instead of two ignorant fools wasting their time revealing their own ignorance to each other, why don't we return to our studies? Then someday we will have earned the right to even open our mouth on this forum or any one, concerning broader astrology issues.

Varuna, if you didn't want to discuss the issue you shouldn't have brought it up. You asked for a discussion on the issue, when I respond now you're saying we should 'return to our studies'.

Whatever. You've made false claims of both the sidereal and tropical zodiac here. If you want to debate the issue let's do so. If you just wanted to get something off your chest and not have to actually address any of these issues then fine too. You've now done so.

What astrology system is based on Newgrange? Yes, probably every culture knew about seasons and marked them - it is kind of hard not to notice seasons, unless you are on the equator. Ancient Indians also used the seasons, but for some reason they chose to use a star-based astrology, but they still kept track of seasons separately.

You suggested that ancient astrologers never used seasons and only stars and that astrologers who used seasons were in contradiction to their history. Clearly this is not true as can be seen by the many many exmaples of seasonal demarcations in prehistory which continues through to historic records.

Did it ever occur to you that there could be more than one cycle of things imposed on other cycles of things in the same culture? It seems like it has occurred to you, but you insist on questioning jyotish, without having studied the earliest origins of both systems, and learning both systems.

How do you know what I've studied or what I believe? You've suggested certain inaccurate things of tropical astrology. I'm addressing those. I don't care about jyotish astrology to diminish. However there are questions which this system raises for me.

Whoever told you that Aries is the only constellation jyotishis pay attention to? When you have a star-based zodiac you take a particular placement and base the zodiac on that, just as you would by picking the vernal equinox as the 0 point for a tropical zodiac, for example. Your argument contradicts your own position as well.

Name one other constellation that is involved in the calculation of the sidereal zodiac?

The constellation of Aries doesn't even reach to either end of the sidereal sign of Aries. Why would jyotish base their signs on Aries? Who said they do this in the first place? I do not know what tree you are choosing to see, rather than the forest. I do not understand you.

This is my point. I said they ignore the other CONSTELLATIONS not the other signs. The only constellation that is used in the calculation of these sidereal zodiacs is aries. The fact that the constellation Virgo is vastly 'larger' than that of, say, Scorpio is similarly ignored.

The signs are 30 degrees because they take into account the influence of the surrounding galaxy and of the physics of harmonics at the same time. It is an elegant solution.

Explain why the 'influence' of the surrounding galaxy suggested that 30 degrees rather than 31 or 25 or 20 was necessary.

The names of the constellations and their shapes are arbitrary and placed on them by humans. It makes absolutely no difference if one constellation overlaps another one or not, as it were.

Couldn't have put it better. So why is Aries 'less' arbitrary that we have to go hunting for ayanamshas for it. Why this constellation and not another? What's so special about Aries from a purely sidereal point of view ignoring the obvious tropical considerations?
I always think those who use the sidereal zodiac as they do seem to basically just use the tropical zodiac and move it 23 degrees off 0 Aries whilst sticking to all the tropical meanings of the signs and the symbolism associated with it.

It is those regions of the sky (surrounding stars and galaxy) which matter in jyotish, not the arbitrary shape of a constellation.

Apart from 0 Aries right? Apparently this is very important.

They don't precess the latitude for the same reason that declination is unnecessary in Western astrology to give a reading. But more importantly, you are looking at it through the lens of the Tropical system, if you think more deeply about this you will realize the absurdity of the allegation of "not precessing the latitude." Hint: think about it by switching the idea that whichever zodiac you think is fixed, is also movable from the viewpoint of the other, and vice versa. Everything is relative to each other.

Why precess anything? It is to stick to having a reflection of the stars right? Well not precessing latitude means you WON'T have this reflection.

Someday you will understand why Ed made that statement on the thread at astrodienst about the recent article which questioned jyotish roots.

My mother used to say this to me too. When I grow up I'll eventually agree with her. Well until then ...

It might be helpful to try this thought experiment: Imagine that you are standing in whichever orientation you are standing in right now and take away the earth. Which way is up? Take away the solar system. Which way is up? Take away the galaxy. Which way is up? Take away the local galaxy cluster. Which way is up? Take away the visible universe. Which way is up?

Everything is relative.

Well obviously, I don't recall arguing anything about this. Now get back to the issue at hand.

I do not mean that you are prejudiced against jyotish, but that your previous training has dirtied the lens of your mind from seeing alternative things with clarity.

Swing and miss. On the contrary my 'training' taught me to be respectful of all forms of astrology and recognise the truth that each system has - be this traditional, psychological, heliocentric, sidereal, uranian etc.

However, my natural 'instinct' is to simply not swallow everything I'm told but to think about it and question it. This has nothing to do with prejudice nor with 'training'. This is just a critical mind and a healthy dose of skepticism. Don't worry, I have issues with parts of tropical astrology too, it's not unique to jyotish. I've already said that the techniques used in jyotish may be very valuable. What I have issues with are the arguments which you've used here to suggest that those who use the tropical zodiac are in contradiction to the roots of western astrology - clearly untrue. It's these kinds of ill informed statements that I'm arguing against here. In fact, despite your assertions, it would seem that perhaps it is you who have prejudices here.
I do not deny that sidereal considerations are important for example. I have no problem with this. I do have concerns with how it is currently used and the rationales for some of its usage. I'm addressing those.

The house cusps in Western astrology are placed on the front of the house, which is contrary to jyotish. This is why oftentimes the cusp ruler of various houses in Western astrology is the same as it would be in jyotish.

Sorry which house system 'often' matches up with the jyotish cusps. This is totally absurd. Perhaps you would care to show examples of this effect. It's actually a quite absurd statement to make and smacks of desperation.

If you truly believe, without proof, that the rulerships and such are a northern hemisphere seasonal invention, then how do you dare to delineate a chart from Australia using Western astrology?

As I say I have issues with the tropical zodiac too. But as far as I'm aware there's no clear rationale for the rulerships to be anything other than northen tropical in origin. I haven't got a chance to read Mark's links just yet. I'm likely going to have to retire from this debate soon for personal reasons, I'm not at liberty just at the moment to devote time into more research on this. Having done so in the past I'm content that the attribution of rulerships is indeed tropical and not sidereal.

If you have only studied hellenistic astrology or post-hellenistic astrology, then you know nothing about the early astrology.

If my aunt had balls I'd call her uncle. My aunt does not have balls though.

I am certainly taking that advice myself. But you are free to do as you choose, or are you? (karma, astrological predispositions, etc.)

Good for you, hopefully this means we can expect less statements like:

Nowadays there are astrologers who use a seasonal based astrology, but this is entirely contradictory to the roots of their tradition(s).

Why do some astrologers insist on using a seasonal based zodiac for their astrology, when it is clear that the roots of the tradition do not use the seasons?

seasonal variation not nearly as important in India most of which lies between the tropics as it is in more northerly climes above 23N+ latitude.

For instance, the Mayans while aware of equinoces & solstices were more concerned with Meridian passage of the sun to establish

Paul,

I want to thank you for teaching me, in an indirect way.

You are correct that this thread was a catharsis for me.

The response I wrote to you was actually written to myself, more than it was to you (if you subtract yourself and my responses to your ideas from what I wrote). It was some thoughts and inner revelations I experienced in my brief time on this forum. I finally understood relativity and impermanence from another perspective in the process of writing my response to you, which on the surface appeared to be directed towards you, but was not actually towards you.

I edited it 5 times, it looks like, if I would have continued editing it, you and your responses would not have remained in the final version. The final version would have been a much longer essay and it would have been an essay on the maya level of the appearances of reality, and on the nature of reality. It would have been a metaphysical essay.

As I was writing to you I was watching the planets rotate and the earth shifting and rotating, and the equinoxes occurring over and over again for ages, and watching the arbitrary shifting zodiac points, and the solar system spinning, and the galaxies rotating and the stars moving amongst each other, in my mind's eye.

I was imagining the universe inside my mind, and being larger than the universe.

I felt the void.

It was inner thoughts. I was teaching myself and not you.

I cannot state the tropical zodiac is wrong.

This zodiac argument appears very ridiculous to me now.

namaste